h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Alfredo. I've heard the Amsterdam is the center of the Universe and although I can't be sure about there being a centre of the Universe, I'm sure if there was one, it would be Amsterdam. Lovely place and Holland is only country apart from England I would want to live. (looks like Heiniken)

Amsterdam sounds cool, indeed.

Now let's have another laugh and look again at some of Sorb's ramblings.

What does spontaneous mean?
The OED defines "spontaneous" thus: "acting or done without external cause". So if life arose without God, ie. without external cause making it happen, that would classify the appearance of life as a spontaneous event.

Sorb muses thus: "Well, yes, if life did "form spontaneously", that would be surprising.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. To my thinking there must be an external cause, and Sorb suddenly agrees.

Then he categorically states: "Life, as I have had to tediously repeat over and over again for the hard of thinking, DOES NOT FORM SPONTANEOUSLY BY CHANCE".

Yes, I agree! It doesn't FORM SPONTANEOUSLY BY CHANCE.

But then having declaimed that life doesn't NEEDS AN EXTERNAL CAUSE (it's NOT spontaneous, remember), he then u-turns:

"Life, as we call it, arises gradually, without the need for outside interference."

Hmmm. Life as we call it, eh?

Remind me, according to Sorb, did some external cause cause life to arise?

Let's see:

"Well, yes, if life did "form spontaneously", that would be surprising".

Right, so something or someone external caused it to arise, then?
But no!

"Life, as we call it, arises gradually, without the need for outside interference."

Perhaps there are two people living inside Sorb's head.

WG, I think you and SoRB are confusing what's meant by 'spontaneous'. Or rather, you're choosing to misunderstand. From dictionary.com..

spon·ta·ne·ous /spɒnˈteɪniəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spon-tey-nee-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
5. produced by natural process.

So, 3 and 5 mean what SoRB implied, not what you claimed he had to mean.


It seems that religious people, claiming that god created life, seem to mean that at Step 1, there were some random chemicals floating about in a pond. Then, at Step 2, shazzam! There's a bacterium! Praise the Lord!

What others mean is that there were many steps between 1 and 2. First amino acids, then proteins, then lipid 'cells', some kind of replicator, etc etc. All these chemicals seem to form fairly normally under conditions which are similar to our best guess of what the Earth was like in its youth. These natural processes lead to life, in all it spontaneous (3 or 5) glory.

haha thats okay. im glad you took that so well and thank you... you are much easier to read now

and okay... i misread in your intro or misremembered... its richard. sorry

thank you pedro for clearing that up so well for WG. WG i dont know if youre being deliberately obtuse or what but i think you should stop and think about what soRB has been saying.... really! stopandthink!

Pedro, Pedro, please read and this time switch your brain on, ok? I know exactly what spontaneous means. I agree totally with your definition of spontaneous. When I said that according to evolution life formed spontaneously, Sorb went ballistic writing in LARGE CAPITALS for "the hard of thinking" that life DIDN'T form spontaneously.

So, according to your definition (or any normal definition of the word), if Sorb doesn't believe life formed spontaneously, then Sorb doesn't believe life (1) came or resulted from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: eg. a spontaneous burst of applause.

He also doesn't believe life "as we know it" is:
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.

Nor then, according to Sorb, was life formed
4. naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.

Nor does he believe life is:
5. produced by natural process.

How can Sorb deride me when I said evolution advocates the spontaneous formation of life?

Pedro, do you agree with me, Welshgenghis, that evolution is about the spontaneous formation of life?

Or do you agree with Sorb who says LIFE DOES NOT FORM SPONTANEOUSLY in capital letters?

Fluffy K, is abiogenesis or is abiogenesis not about the spontaneous formation of life?

I say it is, Sorb says it isn't.

What do you think? Are you able to answer this question?

<> WG from a previous post.

You are deliberately stirring the shit up, mate (although you were provoked, so it no big deal). The external cause you were on about was god. Perhaps you might ask SoRB which of the several definitions *he* meant before giving one of yours?

<>

Nope, you're wrong, and I suspect you know it. Your external cause is god, and his cause (and mine) are the laws of physics and chemistry. Life formed spontaneously whether it was by the tooth fairy or what all educated people think. Likewise, abiogenesis occured as well, whichever mechanism you choose to explain it. This is pretty much a given. *You* are trying to confuse terms to make your views of the existence of god seem more plausible.


<>

I've explained how you're trying to muddy the waters here, so define spontaneously before you ask me to agree with anything you say.

um.. i dunno WG... all those big words... so i plugged earliest emergence of life into google in order to remind myself of what i learned in my science classes and this is what i came upon

http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/skybreak/earliest_emergence_life.htm

i think its pretty straightforward... it helped me understand the basic stuff somewhat better.
maybe it will help you too.

Pedro, I'm not trying to muddy the waters, believe me.

Sure, evolution is about what happens once life has formed. But we're focussing on the formation of life. So I'm sorry for using the term evolution where I should have said abiogenesis.

You ask me: "define spontaneously before you ask me to agree with anything you say."

Look, take any of the definitions 1 to 5 you cited, apart from number two. (Number two is "of a person", so doesn't apply to our topic, but whichever of the others you chose would fit):


adjective 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
5. produced by natural process.

I simply said abiogenesis proposes the spontaneous formation of life.
Sorb went wild, implying I was stupid to make such a statement. And yet my statement (that abiogenesis proposes the spontaneous formation of life) is correct, so why be so rude?

So, taking any of the four definitions above (1,3,4,5) would you agree with me that the theory of abiogenesis proposes the spontaneous formation of life?

FluffyK, thanks for the link. Will look at it some time.

<>

No. Abiogenesis is the necessary precursor of life, unless you think that life started *exactly* when the universe did. However life started, it started from non-life. It's not a theory, it's a necesary fact, even if you're a fundamentalist.

Well, yes, I myself said earlier in this conversation that even from a religious point of view, you could say abiogenesis describes the creation of life by God, too. But this is not really true, since to Christians God is considered to be a living God. But anyway, I can see I have to narrow my definition more for you to understand what I'm driving at:

...So, taking any of the four definitions above (1,3,4,5) would you agree with me that the theory of abiogenesis proposes the spontaneous formation of life assuming there is no God or creator (otherwise it's not really abiogenesis anyway?

Must be careful not to go "wild"...

The objection I have to the use of the word "spontaneous" is simply that, in this as in so many cases, religious people dishonestly exploit the fact that many people consider it near-synonymous with "instantaneous".

Did the earth form "spontaneously" from gas and dust? Well, yes. But to the average person, I would submit that something that happens by tiny, imperceptible steps over a period longer than the human race has been in existence is hardly the sort of process one normally describes as "spontaneous".

The difference here is between what actually happened - tiny incremental steps from non-life, through intermediate phases where whether what you're looking at is life or not is arguable, to life at the end - and what the religious prefer to think of, which is a single miraculous moment where inert matter was imbued by a supernatural being with some vital essence, transforming it instantly into something fundamentally different.

In the technical sense, yes, life arose spontaneously. But the misuse of that word is SO common, SO frequently abused, that it is important to be abundantly clear at every stage what is meant by every word.

It's this absolute necessity to be alert for dishonest misrepresentation that makes talking to religious people about this sort of thing so tedious. What makes it more tedious is they all use exactly the same lies, deliberate misunderstandings, long-debunked nonsense and wilful misrepresentations.

SoRB

I would say the hard of thinking are those who fail to understand the difference between spontaneous and instantaneous, and then have a hissy fit when someone uses the word correctly!

That is tedious.

Now that Sorb understands the word spontaneous, he agrees that, if we remove God from the debate, then the earth must have formed spontaneously.

I take it he also agrees that life itself must also have formed spontaneously, but I wouldn't wish to presume, and so risk misrepresenting him.

I know, let's ask him. Sorb, in your opinion, did life on earth form spontaneously?

In post 124 Sorb says:

Well, yes, if life did "form spontaneously", that would be surprising. However, life, as I have had to tediously repeat over and over again for the hard of thinking, DOES NOT FORM SPONTANEOUSLY BY CHANCE.

In post 155 we have this from Sorb:

In the technical sense, yes, life arose spontaneously. But the misuse of that word is SO common, SO frequently abused, that it is important to be abundantly clear at every stage what is meant by every word.

Notice the dishonesty of Sorb. Instead of admitting he didn't know the meaning of the word spontaneous, he pretends that he was making sure everyone is

"abundantly clear at every stage what is meant by every word."

You're the one who needs to learn what words mean, Sorb. This is funnier than Prof Sarah Green telling people to use a dictionary!
Why didn't Sorb just say, "Let's check we're clear about what we mean by spontaneous" instead of saying

"if life did "form spontaneously", that would be surprising. However, life, as I have had to tediously repeat over and over again for the hard of thinking, DOES NOT FORM SPONTANEOUSLY BY CHANCE."

Incidently, the few people I've asked (wife, colleagues) have given very good descriptions of the meaning of the word "spontaneous". They seem to struggle much less than Sorb in understanding it.